We Need Your Help!

[methshin]

You know what's funny? I'm blessed.

Yes, me, the guy who has been called The UFOlogical Godzilla, asshole, prick - and all in just the last week - by folks who haven't had a date in years, and yet, my big fat loud self has a gorgeous, brilliant and successful honey who loves to talk about this stuff, and is one of the biggest fans of the show. Just the other day, we were on the phone (she's off at a conference - no, NOT UFOs, a professional gathering of her peers, she's risen to the absolute top of her profession), I was talking to her about the excellent interviews happening this week, and all of a sudden, I realized I was running at the mouth, and said, "you don't really want to hear about all this stuff, right?", to which she responded that she loved hearing all about it, and to please continue. And the thing is, she really meant it, she's totally into these areas and has given me some truly great insights into both the topics and the personalities involved - and man, she's been right on every time. Lordy Be, I love that woman.

So for such a big, mean Calvinist witch hunter bully, I'm one lucky MoFo. And no, I'm not trying to rub anyone's faces in it, I'm just sharing the fact that I'm blessed.



dB

Glad to hear your personal life is doing great in that regard. It's great that you have someone close to you that you can discuss this with. My girl listens to what I have to say about the field, but doesn't really have anything to contribute, so it's more like I'm talking at her than having a conversation. She's interested enough, but says she doesn't have it in her to get into the field, especially when she hears me swearing and stomping when some jackass starts spouting out BS and nonsense, she says I'll likely give myself a heart attack one day.

 

[Blacknight]

I have listened to the relevant Paratopia podcast and read through his entire thread. I will also celebrate my 35th wedding anniversary this fall (married young!). Those are my only qualifications for commenting on this.

Nancy Birnes' comments were neither shrill nor hysterical. She was a wife defending her husband. For many years I was a senior Human Resources executive. When we terminated an employee, I always made a point to staff to be certain to address the spouse in the termination process, that the employee was more likely to see the objective rationale behind the termination, that the spouse will only see how her/his good spouse, who worked so hard, was abused by the company. And that would simply make the transition all the more difficult for the employee. This was what Nancy Birnes was doing. She was defending her good husband from what she saw as mistreatment at, mostly, David's hands. And there is certainly some evidence that he was taken to task, even if not directly called a "fraud". So she was just being a decent wife. No problem with that. In fact, I would expect no less from my wife. You take the comment from its source and consider it accordingly.

Another point she made was that there are forum members who are fomented by David to "pile on". I am not sure members here require much fomenting. Certainly this forum gives David and Gene a generally supportive environment. So does UFO Mag to the Birnes'. Like any media, if you don't like it, turn it off or don't read it.

I get the sense that there are camps developing. The Birnes' are certainly major players in the "field". They are formidable opponents to have, even if only by "moral suasion". And it appears there's some issue as between Ritzmann/Vaeni and Gene/David (although they carefully avoided any comments during Nancy's comments). Personally, I think that is the greater loss than is the Birnes'. I find those two very intelligent, funny and thought provoking.

In any case, is there really room in this "field" for all these feuds? I can see fundamental disagreements on issues, but it all seems so personal and irresolvable. Ultimately it becomes petty and issues-bereft. The paranormal arena is a big enough rock to push up the mountain without being burdened with camps based on personal disputes and personalities. It does make things interesting, for sure. But I'm not sure it's good for serious consideration of issues.

 

[David Biedny]

Well, what can I say, according to Nancy B., Gene & I are "Calvinists". How's that being anything other than, what's the word, oh yeah, ignorant?

And in private emails, Nancy claims that all of her anger is tied to the episode from last November, when I exited the conversation due my total disgust with Bill's bringing up Lear - as well as other personal issues going on at the time which are not public knowledge. My BS tolerance was at an all-time low. So for this incredible crime against Bill, I'm now a Calvinist, witch burner, bully?

Whatever. UFO Magazine has a few decent columnists, and a whole lot of nonsensical bullshit. I'm glad to be off their masthead, and the Birnes can continue to shit on the field - giving people like Lear a platform is just laughable - we'll just continue to put out quality Paracast episodes. Living well is the best revenge.

Oh, and based on what Nancy told me last October about their circulation, The Paracast audience is a double-digit multiple of their readership. Go figga.

dB

 

[bobheck]

Nancy Birnes' comments...

Astute observation. But, I believe many of the remarks were aimed at the show, and Nancy was also defending her work there as creator.

In any case, is there really room in this "field" for all these feuds? I can see fundamental disagreements on issues, but it all seems so personal and irresolvable.

When someone in this field starts to make irrational claims, he or she simply must be called on it. Now, with Birnes, the claims were made on his show UFO Hunters. So, any attack on UFO Hunters is going to be perceived as an attack on Bill and Nancy, because they are attached at the hip to the show.

David and Gene would have been remiss if they did not address the irrationality of the show that came to a head in the third season. It is what they do. It is what they are known for - you know, the whole "Separating Signal From Noise" thing.

In the third season, at times Bill made nonsensical conclusions that somehow did not end up on the cutting room floor. Bill is producer, Nancy creator -- to them, it was personal when those items were addressed.

 

[Blacknight]

When someone in this field starts to make irrational claims, he or she simply must be called on it. Now, with Birnes, the claims were made on his show UFO Hunters. So, any attack on UFO Hunters is going to be perceived as an attack on Bill and Nancy, because they are attached at the hip to the show.

I don't get that comment at all! The amount of claims related on the Paracast and virtually every other paranormal forum of any medium which qualify as less-than-rational is countless. What is "rational" about claims that aliens have visited us, mostly undetected and unprovable, for decades, if not centuries. Or, about ghosts, strange creatures, structures on the moon and Mars, alien abductions, hybrid beings. Even David has related stories which defy pure rationality. The entire point of people dabbling in the field of paranormal research is to stretch the limits of "rationality" to consider possibilities which are beyond the bounds of science, as we know it today.

What you are suggesting is that lines may appropriately be drawn around what qualifies as rational in an arena in which almost NOTHING meets that threshhold. For example, Corso's stories are almost certainly untrue. Nevertheless, there is a worthwhile story to be considered on its face. And that story relates to "Why?" His story is not irrational. It is premised upon a rationality which I believe you accept...that we have been visited by advanced civilzations. His story is, simply, likely untrue. If you discount stories such as this as irrational then you must reject all similar stories. Contrast that with David's reported observation of a faceless young woman who vanished. That, on its face, defies rationality. Yet, I think most listeners accept his version, not because it IS rational, but because we choose to accept its irrationality, based upon our personal acceptance of his credibility. We cross the threshhold and put that in the "inexplicable" category, but there is nothing "rational" about it.

There is true and untrue. But in the "field" of paranormal research, rationality is an impossible criteria; it is not about the NORMAL, after all. And finding the truth is not something that can be so easily determined.
To position David and Gene as arbiters of rationality is just wrong.

 

[Schuyler]

I must say I really don't understand Nancy's use of the term 'Calvinist' applied to G&D. Calvinism was a reformist movement in the Church: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism is an extensive discussion of it. Shorter definitions are: 1) "An exciting and insightful study of elections and predestination" and 2) "The religious doctrines of John Calvin, emphasizing the omnipotence of God and the salvation of the elect by God's grace alone." Calvinism was part of the Reformation, and that was a challenge to the power of the Holy Roman Empire, which at that time was seen as corrupt. The Church had become very rich and the reformists were saying that wasn't the point of the christian religion. Catholic churches were full of gold and idols. Reformist churches were austere in nature.

So what Calvinism did, along with Luther and a lot of others, was knock the first cracks into the power of the Pope, which was an extension of the Roman Empire, which never really fell. It kind of just changed hands thanks to Constantine. European countries had their kings and queens, but the whole place was run with the assent of the Church. It wasn't until King Henry VIII broke with the church that this power began to be cracked. That 'divorce thing' was a side issue, really. King Henry II wanted to do the same thing, but he simply did not have the power to pull it off. He's known for killing St. Thomas Beckett, thanks to the church, instead of the other reformist things he did, like form a 12 man jury system for trials to replace 'trial by combat' or 'You sink you were innocent; you float you're guilty' methods of justice.

G&D have a professed philosophy of 'separating signal from noise' to challenge Ufology orthodoxy and unbridled belief in anything, a situation which has brought us the likes fo Steven Greer, John Lear, and Sean David Morton, among many others. If you can make a comparison between Calvinism challenging the authority of an Empire that spanned continents and G&D challenging the state of Ufology where people will believe anything, then the term is apt.

Calvinism, in this light, is a good thing and should be worn as a badge of honor.

However, my sense is that Nancy Birnes does not really understand the term at all. It's just being bandied about as a meaningless insult that says more about the naivite of the accuser than it does about her targets. She kind of reminds me of Richard Boylan, a 'psychologist' (disbarred) who considers himself a Ufologist and has accused just about every other player in the field of being a CIA agent. So, when being insulted, consider the credibility of the insulter.

 

[bobheck]

I don't get that comment at all!...

Those are not the type of claims that were the focus of argument. Claims such as "There is only one explanation - time travel" to explain an ancient artifact resembling a jet aircraft.

And this quote sums up another:

The telling exchange to me was the moment that Uskert took a step back and just couldn't accept what was shoveled to him in the photos. And he was skeptical of the claims of "drawings made from photos."

Then, Birnes says: "I've seen the images!"

Uskert: "The drawings, or the actual photos?"

Birnes: "The drawings..."

Every single time I see/hear Birnes, he seems to wonder a step or two further out on a very short limb.

Furthermore, they used Lear as a reference.

Better yet, just go read this thread

Dulce New Mexico, Alien Base? - The Paracast Community Forums

Irrational? Yes. Case closed. Moving on.

 

[Schuyler]

IThere is true and untrue. But in the "field" of paranormal research, rationality is an impossible criteria; it is not about the NORMAL, after all. And finding the truth is not something that can be so easily determined. To position David and Gene as arbiters of rationality is just wrong.

I think you're fixating on the word 'rational' here a little too much. The difference is not one of rationality, but one of approach. We all know this stuff is weird.

When David speaks of his encounter with the faceless girl, he just tells it like he personally saw it. Then he says, "I don't know what this was." It's strictly a face-value discussion. he's not even insisting that what he saw was in 'obective reality.'

When Bill Birnes sees what is likely the base to an unfinished water tower in Germany, he immediately speculates that this was a test bed for a Nazi Bell that defied gravity, suggesting the base is some sort of tethering system to hold it in place while experimenting. His cohort on the show takes him to a completed water tower, points out the base, which is exactly the same construction--every truss is the same--and Birnes refuses to even admit that it might be explainable. he clings to his fantasy of a Nazi Bell.

That is clearly a difference in approach. One says, 'I don't know." The other makes stuff up. I don't think that is wrong.

 

[Decker]

I had, at first, decided to just skip this thread, then one of the less comprehensible writers at UFO Magazine, Alfred Lehmberg, wrote a shitty note to my wife and I decided . . . too bad.

The problem is thin skin syndrome. Mrs. Birnes see's any criticism as a personal attack. When I bowed out of the research thing and wrote my goodbye note Bill and Nancy took great umbrage at what I had to say about the direction they were then taking the publication. Hey, opinions are like butts, everybody has them. Hell, if I were thin skinned as they appear to be I would have bailed out of the thing on and around about 1990.

The other thing that I think Nancy objected to was my assertion that she knew very little about the subject, the players, the history, the frauds in the field. She wasn't interested in what either my wife or I had to say concerning any of the above. Over the last couple of years any number of folks have asked me what happened and I told them "I am out of this thing, prefer not to speak of it, write the editor." Hell, I get hate regardless of what I say or do. So be it.

For example, I read some comments about my March 2009 interview cocerning remarks I made about Rich Dolan. If you heard the interview I said words to the effect of, "Dolan had originally told me he wanted to interview me about the deal with John Lear, Bill Cooper, Lars Hansson, and the JFK shot by his driver thing." He never did and from what Rich Dolan said on his interview, he got a lot of the basics wrong. I pointed that out. Now I catch heat about it. Well sorry, but the history aspect of this field is my thing. Geeze, I was there and I saw it. And, it is not like I never talked, wrote or broadcast this stuff before. You don't like me? No problem but I have not been accused of making this stuff up by anyone, and if I have been accused they never could prove it. Am I bitching? Well, maybe a little bit, now I think I will close out and go back to something productive like working on the sequel to my novel.

Decker

 

[grannysmith]

I must say I really don't understand Nancy's use of the term 'Calvinist' applied to G&D. Calvinism was a reformist movement in the Church: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism is an extensive discussion of it. Shorter definitions are: 1) "An exciting and insightful study of elections and predestination" and 2) "The religious doctrines of John Calvin, emphasizing the omnipotence of God and the salvation of the elect by God's grace alone." Calvinism was part of the Reformation, and that was a challenge to the power of the Holy Roman Empire, which at that time was seen as corrupt. The Church had become very rich and the reformists were saying that wasn't the point of the christian religion. Catholic churches were full of gold and idols. Reformist churches were austere in nature.

So what Calvinism did, along with Luther and a lot of others, was knock the first cracks into the power of the Pope, which was an extension of the Roman Empire, which never really fell. It kind of just changed hands thanks to Constantine. European countries had their kings and queens, but the whole place was run with the assent of the Church. It wasn't until King Henry VIII broke with the church that this power began to be cracked. That 'divorce thing' was a side issue, really. King Henry II wanted to do the same thing, but he simply did not have the power to pull it off. He's known for killing St. Thomas Beckett, thanks to the church, instead of the other reformist things he did, like form a 12 man jury system for trials to replace 'trial by combat' or 'You sink you were innocent; you float you're guilty' methods of justice.

G&D have a professed philosophy of 'separating signal from noise' to challenge Ufology orthodoxy and unbridled belief in anything, a situation which has brought us the likes fo Steven Greer, John Lear, and Sean David Morton, among many others. If you can make a comparison between Calvinism challenging the authority of an Empire that spanned continents and G&D challenging the state of Ufology where people will believe anything, then the term is apt.

Calvinism, in this light, is a good thing and should be worn as a badge of honor.

However, my sense is that Nancy Birnes does not really understand the term at all. It's just being bandied about as a meaningless insult that says more about the naivite of the accuser than it does about her targets. She kind of reminds me of Richard Boylan, a 'psychologist' (disbarred) who considers himself a Ufologist and has accused just about every other player in the field of being a CIA agent. So, when being insulted, consider the credibility of the insulter.

I think the point may have been about a rigid distinction between the 'blessed' and the 'damned' based upon the capricious decisions of a (in the analogy, self-appointed) 'deity' : this manichean duality based on a 'choice of who is blessed' which cannot be overturned is what she was getting at.

I'm not saying I agree with her analysis but, sheesh, what she was getting at was obvious, surely?:

 

[Schuyler]

I think the point may have been about a rigid distinction between the 'blessed' and the 'damned' based upon the capricious decisions of a (in the analogy, self-appointed) 'deity' : this manichean duality based on a 'choice of who is blessed' which cannot be overturned is what she was getting at.

I'm not saying I agree with her analysis but, sheesh, what she was getting at was obvious, surely?:

Yes, it is obvious that there's another point of vew about Calvinism, and that it isn't all bad. I don't really give a shit how many angels dance on the head of a pin.

 

[grannysmith]

Yes, it is obvious that there's another point of vew about Calvinism, and that it isn't all bad. I don't really give a shit how many angels dance on the head of a pin.

Well, precisely, but misunderstanding the point of the analogy and veering into a 'description' of Calvinism not pertinent to her 'point', is hardly constructive, is it?

 

[Schuyler]

Well, precisely, but misunderstanding the point of the analogy and veering into a 'description' of Calvinism not pertinent to her 'point', is hardly constructive, is it?

Actually, it is QUITE constructive. That's the whole point. Intentionally misunderstanding my point isn't constructive either, I would think.

 

[grannysmith]

Actually, it is QUITE constructive. That's the whole point. Intentionally misunderstanding my point isn't constructive either, I would think.

Well, it's like someone comparing someone to Hitler and a third party trying to have a debate about the merits of National Socialism. Analogies lie as they fall acccording to their purpose. There's no point saying 'ah, the calvinists were misunderstood, or whatever".

The point is whether 'the show' has a list of the 'blessed' and a list of the 'damned' or not. I think it does (and once you have a single heretical view you are 'damned by association' unless Biedny 'likes you' - which actually reinforces the 'capricious predestination' analogy).

 

[Schuyler]

Well, it's like someone comparing someone to Hitler and a third party trying to have a debate about the merits of National Socialism. Analogies lie as they fall acccording to their purpose. There's no point saying 'ah, the calvinists were misunderstood, or whatever".

The point is whether 'the show' has a list of the 'blessed' and a list of the 'damned' or not. I think it does (and once you have a single heretical view you are 'damned by association' unless Biedny 'likes you' - which actually reinforces the 'capricios predestination' analogy).

I don't see it myself, and I've heard one rule of thumb on forums is that by the third post Hitler will inevitably be invoked--even though there's not been a hint of him before. I see the law is being upheld. Congratulations upholding the Law of the Hitlerian non Sequitur. But let's, for the sake of argument, assume your definition. The issue at stake here, as far as I understand it, is the credibility of UFO Magazine and UFO Hunters. There are those who assume the Bassett Position, that any exposure, good or bad, is actually good. It could also be called the Daley Approach (former Chicago Mayor, the elder) "Call me good or call me bad, but spell my name right." For folks like that, this argument is moot and irrelevant.

We have testimony from people far beyond just this little group that the magazine has gone downhill, that it was taken over by people not really conversant in the field, and that in its current incarnation, it is less than reliable. Just take a look at the article contents and see for yourself: http://www.ufomagazine.com. Who else says so? Don Ecker, founder of the magazine. If YOU can find tidbits of value in that thing, have at it Brutha! And good luck to you. A recent issue had a whole article on orbs, and, of course, there are those pesky drones again.

And then we have UFO Hunters. We've all seen it. The collective opinion seems to be that it is an example of credulity gone amok. Water towers taken for secret projects, college students duping the show with balloons. It's entertainment, surely, but it's not particularly hard-headed journalism. I don't think the Birnes are 'frauds' at all. They are not intentionally attempting to dupe someone like Knell does, for example. I just think they are credulous, starry-eyed, and kind of light-weight in their approach. Maybe some of that is forced upon them by the History Channel, but when you have the magazine use the same approach, I kind of doubt it. Perhaps one attracted the other.

Now we come to it. Nancy says David is 'Calvinistic' because, using your terms, he is taking a god-like position judging Birnes & Co., Talbott, plus Knell, Greer, Bassett, etc. She criticizes the Paracast as taking a god-like position because it criticizes others and calls them to task. She considers herself equal. By that same token you have to call the scientific method Calvinistic because it insists on proof of claims. It's like this:

"Jesus walked on water and turned water into wine. They are miracles."
"Prove it."
"You're being Calvinistic."

or this (paraphrased):

Talbott: "I know nothing of photography. I just bought a camera. I'm not technical at all. I just took these pictures of orbs."
Biedny: "Those are dust particles."
Talbott: "No, they are not."
Biedny: "The ONLY thing I claim expertise in is imaging. Those are dust particles."
Talbott: "I don't believe you."
Biedny: "Nancy, those are dust particles. We've seen these hundreds of times!"
Talbott: "You're being Calvinistic."

It's easy to bandy about the term. You're suggesting the Paracast is some sort of orthodox religion and that 'heretical' views are ostracized. I'm suggesting extremists will always call the voices of moderation orthodox. You're here to prove your extremist view. That's all you care about, really. You're already convinced. If you're going to come on here and seriously claim 'God did it,' you can expect to be called to task. If you're going to claim dust particles are orbs, expect to be called to task. At least here, every conspiracy theory thought up by someone is not simply welcomed with open arms. But, of course, you're a superior being certain of your beliefs, looking down on us mere mortals with a bemused and mocking eye, sure of your place in Heaven (err...unless the Calvinists are right and it's not your choice.)

I'm of the opinion that moderate boards will always be criticized because extremists are already so convinced of themselves. Here you have a) The Skeptics, who believe in nothing, period, unless it can be scientifically proven. You have b) The 'Believers' the New Age 2012 and were all gonna die guys who have a nice little Cargo Cult going and don't really like anybody criticizing them. Then there are c) 'God did it' crowd. Angels and demons. That's it, period. End of story. On their own boards, all these groups have free reign. Anyone else doesn't last a second. But they come over here and someone says 'bull shit' and they get all huffy. Puhlease.

As for David 'liking' someone, I would suggest to you that the quality of your posts proves your worth. If you were to spend time and energy writing insightful posts, cite your sources, and accept the thoughts of others, you would be 'liked' much more than taking 20 seconds to dash off two-sentence dings every time you get the chance, simply in the hopes of provoking people rather than provide them with new information.

 

[grannysmith]

I don't see it myself, and I've heard one rule of thumb on forums is that by the third post Hitler will inevitably be invoked--even though there's not been a hint of him before. I see the law is being upheld. Congratulations upholding the Law of the Hitlerian non Sequitur. But let's, for the sake of argument, assume your definition. The issue at stake here, as far as I understand it, is the credibility of UFO Magazine and UFO Hunters. There are those who assume the Bassett Position, that any exposure, good or bad, is actually good. It could also be called the Daley Approach (former Chicago Mayor, the elder) "Call me good or call me bad, but spell my name right." For folks like that, this argument is moot and irrelevant.

We have testimony from people far beyond just this little group that the magazine has gone downhill, that it was taken over by people not really conversant in the field, and that in its current incarnation, it is less than reliable. Just take a look at the article contens and see for yourself: http://www.ufomagazine.com. Who else says so? Don Ecker, founder of the magazine. If YOU can find tidbits of value in that thing, have at it Brutha! And good luck to you. A recent issue had a whole article on orbs, and, of coursem there are those pesky drones again.

And then we have UFO Hunters. We've all seen it. The collective opinion seems to be that it is an example of credulity gone amok. Water towers taken for secret projects, college students duping the show with balloons. It's entertainment, surely, but it's not particularly hard-headed journalism. I don't think the Birnes are 'frauds' at all. They are not intentionally attempting to dupe someone like Knell does, for example. I just think they are credulous, starry-eyed, and kind of light-weight in their approach. Maybe some of that is forced upon them by the History Channel, but when you have the magazine use the same approach, I kind of doubt it. Perhaps one attracted the other.

Now we come to it. Nancy says David is 'Calvinistic' because, using your terms, he is taking a god-like position judging Birnes & Co., Talbott, plus Knell, Greer, Bassett, etc. She criticizes the Paracast as taking a god-like position because it criticizes others and calls them to task. She considers herself equal. By that same token you have to call the scientific method Calvinistic because it insists on proof of claims. It's like this:

"Jesus walked on water and turned water into wine. They are miracles."
"Prove it."
"You're being Calvinistic."

or this (paraphrased):

Talbott: "I know nothing of photography. I just bought a camera. I'm not technical at all. I just took these pictures of orbs."
Biedny: "Those are dust particles."
Talbott: "No, they are not."
Biedny: "The ONLY thing I claim expertise in is imaging. Those are dust particles."
Talbott: "I don't believe you."
Biedny: "Nancy, those are dust particles. We've seen these hundreds of times!"
Talbott: "You're being Calvinistic."

It's easy to bandy about the term. You're suggesting the Paracast is some sort of orthodox religion and that 'heretical' views are ostracized. I'm suggesting extremists will always call the voices of moderation orthodox. You're here to prove your extremist view. That's all you care about, really. You're already convinced. If you're going to come on here and seriously claim 'God did it,' you can expect to be called to task. If you're going to claim dust particles are orbs, expect to be called to task. At least here, every conspiracy theory thought up by someone is not simply welcomed with open arms. But, of course, you're a superior being certain of your beliefs, looking down on us mere mortals with a bemused and mocking eye, sure of your place in Heaven (err...unless the Calvinists are right and it's not your choice.)

I'm of the opinion that moderate boards will always be criticized because extremists are already so convinced of themselves. Here you have a) The Skeptics, who believe in nothing, period, unless it can be scientifically proven. You have b) The 'Believers' the New Age 2012 and were all gonna die guys who have a nice little Cargo Cult going and don't really like anybody criticizing them. Then there are c) 'God did it' crowd. Angels and demons. That's it, period. End of story. On their own boards, all these groups have free reign. Anyone else doesn't last a second. But they come over here and someone says 'bull shit' and they get all huffy. Puhlease.

As for David 'liking' someone, I would suggest to you that the quality of your posts proves your worth. If you were to spend time and energy writing insightful posts, cite your sources, and accept the thoughts of others, you would be 'liked' much more than taking 20 seconds to dash off two-sentence dings every time you get the chance, simply in the hopes of provoking people rather than provide them with new information.

Yes it's Godwin's law:

I'm not here to cite 'God did it' - that claim is a bit bizarre actually.

I actually think David is more or less sound but (and this flaw is fatal, really fatal, in my view) he allows his ego to intervene (and 'wooters' like you don't help, really.

 

[bobheck]

I don't see it myself, and I've heard one rule of thumb on forums is that by the third post Hitler will inevitably be invoked--even though there's not been a hint of him before. I see the law is being upheld. Congratulations upholding the Law of the Hitlerian non Sequitur...

...Now we come to it. Nancy says David is 'Calvinistic' because, using your terms, he is taking a god-like position judging Birnes & Co., Talbott, plus Knell, Greer, Bassett, etc. She criticizes the Paracast as taking a god-like position because it criticizes others and calls them to task. She considers herself equal. By that same token you have to call the scientific method Calvinistic because it insists on proof of claims. It's like this:

"Jesus walked on water and turned water into wine. They are miracles."
"Prove it."
"You're being Calvinistic."

or this (paraphrased):

Talbott: "I know nothing of photography. I just bought a camera. I'm not technical at all. I just took these pictures of orbs."
Biedny: "Those are dust particles."
Talbott: "No, they are not."
Biedny: "The ONLY thing I claim expertise in is imaging. Those are dust particles."
Talbott: "I don't believe you."
Biedny: "Nancy, those are dust particles. We've seen these hundreds of times!"
Talbott: "You're being Calvinistic."
...

(I did not paste the entire quote, but it was all very good.)

I think I'm going to cry. This was without a doubt one of the best posts I have read on this topic.

There is a small army (seemingly) of people that are emotionally attached to this show and Bill and Nancy. They seem to paint two camps, against them and for them. There are in actuality probably at least four camps, against, for, don't give a damn, and those that want to uphold credibility.

I definitely consider myself, and most others in the forum, in the latter. I want to know what the truth is, and use a reasonable approach, and damn the chips -- let them fall where they may. But, if one questions credibility using sound principles, one is attacked by the for camp with a zealous fervor and accused of making personal attacks.

It's really kind of silly. These accusations of attempting to be "god-like" and all that nonsense are emotional in their nature. There is a spiteful element to them much like the old (forgive me) "woman scorned" adage. Trying to apply sound reasoning to discuss bizarre and fantastic assertions is what any reasonable person would do. It is the right way to go about discussing these topics. It is why The Paracast and this forum is so popular. They try to take an objective point of view on all these things and have a rational discussion that would hold up to scrutiny.

 

[Decker]

I

http://www.ufomagazine.com. Who else says so? Don Ecker, founder of the magazine. If YOU can find tidbits of value in that thing, have at it Brutha! And good luck to you. A recent issue had a whole article on orbs, and, of coursem there are those pesky drones again.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Allow me to say this very CLEARLY. My wife, the former Vicki Cooper and her partner, Ms. Sherie Stark FOUNDED UFO Magazine in 1986. I am not the founder.

Thank you.

Decker
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

 

[Schuyler]

Yes it's Godwin's law:

I'm not here to cite 'God did it' - that claim is a bit bizarre actually.

I actually think David is more or less sound but (and this flaw is fatal, really fatal, in my view) he allows his ego to intervene (and 'wooters' like you don't help, really.

Ah, thanks for that! Almost got it right: "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

I'm not sure what a 'wooter' is, actually, but I'm pretty sure I've never personally called you names. If I have and don't remember, I apologize. And I rest my case. Thanks, I'm done here on this particular topic of this thread.

 

[grannysmith]

I think I'm going to cry. This was without a doubt one of the best posts I have read on this topic.

There is a small army (seemingly) of people that are emotionally attached to this show and Bill and Nancy. They seem to paint two camps, against them and for them. There are in actuality probably at least four camps, against, for, don't give a damn, and those that want to uphold credibility.

I definitely consider myself, and most others in the forum, in the latter. I want to know what the truth is, and use a reasonable approach, and damn the chips -- let them fall where they may. But, if one questions credibility using sound principles, one is attacked by the for camp with a zealous fervor and accused of making personal attacks.

It's really kind of silly. These accusations of attempting to be "god-like" and all that nonsense are emotional in their nature. There is a spiteful element to them much like the old (forgive me) "woman scorned" adage. Trying to apply sound reasoning to discuss bizarre and fantastic assertions is what any reasonable person would do. It is the right way to go about discussing these topics. It is why The Paracast and this forum is so popular. They try to take an objective point of view on all these things and have a rational discussion that would hold up to scrutiny.

This is so obviously a Biedney sock-puppet that it's actually a bit embarrassing **hides in shame**